Traffic penalties now 60-day response window

Summary#

B26-0875, the Parking and Traffic Ticket Penalty Reduction Amendment Act of 2026, would amend the District of Columbia Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978. Its stated goal is to remove a penalty equal to the fine for certain late answers to traffic or parking tickets. The bill is introduced and is not law; it would take effect only after the required approvals and congressional review.

  • For the covered notices described in the bill, it removes the extra penalty equal to the fine for failing to answer within 30 days.
  • It sets a 60-day answer deadline for notices under the amended section. If a person does not answer by then, the infraction is deemed admitted and all penalties, fines, and vehicle conveyance fees are assessed. The Director may set a longer deadline by regulation.
  • The Director must mail a reminder, no more than 50 days after the notice is issued, to the address in DMV records if that address was supplied. The reminder must warn of the outstanding notice and impending deemed admission.
  • It removes a rule that imposed section 205 monetary penalties on a lessor for failing to answer within 30 days.
  • The 60-day rule does not apply to participants in the fleet adjudication program.

What it means for you#

  • People receiving covered tickets: You would have 60 days to answer, rather than the 30-day period tied to the penalty this bill removes. Missing the 60-day deadline would still mean the infraction is deemed admitted and the listed penalties, fines, and fees are assessed.
  • People receiving automated-enforcement tickets: The bill excludes these notices from the penalty equal to the fine for not answering within 30 days. The later 60-day deadline and consequences still matter.
  • Vehicle lessors: The bill removes the specific rule that imposed section 205 monetary penalties for not answering a notice within 30 days. Other obligations or penalties are not addressed by that deletion.
  • Fleet adjudication participants: The new 60-day rule does not apply to you.
  • General public: The bill does not create a new ticket-review service or change the underlying traffic and parking offenses.

Money#

No cost or revenue estimate is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill requires the Director to mail reminder notices, but the bill does not state the staffing or mailing cost.
  • Removing late penalties could reduce revenue, but the amount is not available in the supplied material. The bill refers to a fiscal impact statement in a committee report, which was not supplied.

What is unclear#

  • The current version of the 1978 Act was not supplied, so the exact current rules and how the amendments fit with them could not be verified.
  • The bill’s title identifies automated-enforcement and parking, standing, stopping, or pedestrian offenses as covered. The supplied text does not explain how those categories map to each amended section.
  • The bill does not say how the Director would use the power to set a longer answer period.
  • The reminder goes by regular mail to the DMV-record address, if one was supplied. The bill does not describe what happens if the reminder is not received.
  • The bill does not provide the fiscal impact statement or explain how the change interacts with other ticket rules.

Case for#

  • A person who misses the 30-day deadline for a covered notice would not face an added penalty equal to the fine.
  • The 60-day answer period gives more time to respond before the infraction is deemed admitted.
  • A mailed warning before the 60-day deadline could alert a person to an unresolved ticket and the approaching consequence.

Case against#

  • The bill still makes an unanswered infraction deemed admitted after 60 days and requires all penalties, fines, and vehicle conveyance fees to be assessed.
  • The reminder is sent by regular mail to the DMV-record address, if supplied; the bill does not require confirmation that it reached the person.
  • The bill does not include the fiscal impact statement, so the possible revenue loss and cost of mailing reminders are unknown.
  • The bill’s relationship to the current rules is difficult to assess without the current Act and the referenced committee report.